[extropy-chat] against ID

[gts]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:05:29 -0500, Robert Bradbury  
<robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, I *hate* to burst your bubble :-; but ID could well belong in
> courses on science related to whether or not we were (a) setup as an
> evolutionary experiment... Now of course, a *GOOD* discussion of ID 
> doesn't focus on how "complex" our *perceived* universe happensto be....

I think you are referring here to a different and much less controversial  
aspect of ID "theory": that the universe as a whole is too complex not to  
have been the product of intelligent design. They blur the issue by  
including that idea in their agenda.

Many perfectly respectable scientists are deists or theists who have no  
objection to the concept of an Intelligent Designer who created a universe  
in which the natural laws of physics gave rise to the laws of chemistry  
and biology and evolution and humans.

The public controversy is mainly about evolution theory *vs* ID theory,  
where an Intelligent Designer intervenes in nature to temporarily  
over-rule the same natural laws that she presumably created.

I think ID is an affront to science because it weakens whatever we mean by  
"theory," but also an affront to religion. If God exists then surely she  
was smart enough to get it right the first time. :) And surely she is also  
compassionate enough not to make a separate, deliberate attempt to create  
bacteria deadly to humans.

"Oops, I was too stupid to create bacterial flagellum on the 6th day to  
kill humans when I should have... so I'd better step in now and create  
them, lest those pesky humans think well of me..."

-gts